alt.education

"Jeff Strickland" wrote:
>"Josh Rosenbluth" wrote in message
>news:TY-dnTP0hZtZDXjanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> How many times do I have to quote from the ruling before you stop
>> repeating this bald-faced lie?
>
>How many times do I have to tell you what the motivation of CPS was?

How could you possibly know the motivation of a organization?

>CPS wants the school system to be a case worker,

That sentence makes no sense.

>the family wants to educate the children at home.

No one cares what the family wants. The law says that kids must
attend the public schools unless certain very specific exceptions are
met.

>The education satisfied everybody,

It did not. Your claims are unsupported and unsupportable.

>but CPS holds that there is no specific right to home schooling.

Actually, the court held that. Based on the state laws, which CPS is
charged with enforcing.

>The motivation of CPS isn't a proper education,

CPS has no "motivation". They have a responsibility, and that
responsibility is to enforce the state law as it pertains to children,
one of which laws is the compulsory public schooling law.

>There was NEVER any argument that the children were being educated well. In
>fact, the parents were initially ruled in favor that they were providing an
>education that met or exceeded the requirements.

That decision was ruled incorrect by the higher court. It was wrong,
invalid, overruled, and therefore no longer evidence for anything.

lojbab